Keep the rook protected such that the opponent can only move back and forth between two squares, such as a1 and a2 because of your rook at b3 and another at b4. Now, you can make 48 more moves with your king and then move a pawn up one square. You can keep doing this until you have had to promote all your pawns. If you still have 5 pawns, for example, and each pawn has six squares to go, that’s 30 x 49 = 1470 moves. Promote to rooks so you don’t accidentally stalemate. Then move a rook to a8 checkmate.
A good player will never accidentally stalemate.
Alex Relyea
Your assumption that a player that will not resign will also move pieces may be false. To put a halt to your suggestion, all the player has to do is not move until their flag falls.
I have never found answering rudeness with rudeness to be very effective.
I don’t take it personally if someone chooses not to resign. That’s his right. If my position is so clearly won that I believe resignation is (or should be) imminent, then surely it’s within my power to mate my opponent.
It is silly to try to “torture” someone who fails to resign by getting additional Queens or underpromoting to get additional Rooks or more minor pieces. This wastes both players’ time and makes the chances of a stalemate higher. What I recommend to my students is that if they are in that situation, they are to finish the game with simple, accurate moves demonstrating that the end is coming very soon. When they are playing cat and mouse, toying with the opponent in order to humiliate him, I get upset with them for a lack of sportsmanship.
Many players, mostly young ones, hang on because the other player has shown that he is prone to mistakes or does not have a clear idea how to win. Many low rated players cannot win unless they have two Queens on the board to face the bare king of the opponent. Then they can do the staircase method of checkmating the other player. As long as you keep fiddling around not going for the checkmate, the other player will hang around hoping you will mess up the win. When he sees you are not making mistakes and coming directly for him, then he is more likely to resign earlier.
I have seen players expect the other side to resign in positions where it is going to take some time technically to overcome resistance but the end is seemingly in no doubt. That is when the player should be wary as there are usually tactical shots, the possibility of a fortress position, or a problem like draw available. Get complacent, bored, or start goofing around, and the win disappears. Continuing to find the right moves on every turn has a better chance of ending resistance early.
Remember the female player, Mrs. Finegold, at a US Championship? I don’t think she resigned one single game.
If my opponent doesn’t want to resign, that’s fine. I just look at it as an opportunity to practice my endgame and mating skills. I would not “torture” him or try to prolong the game. It’s a bit like a challenge or puzzle: how quickly and efficiently can I mate him?
When I’m on the other side, I resign as soon as I can see not only that I’m losing, but also how the win will be accomplished. If I’m not sure that I could win the position if I were sitting on the other side, I see it as an opportunity to learn something, and play on until I can see the winning technique (and know that the other player can also see it – because I have drawn or won more than a few “lost” positions). This also depends on the rating of my opponent, though – an expert or master is highly unlikely to mess up a won endgame, and I will usually give them the benefit of the doubt and resign (as soon as I see the winning plan/technique).
Yes there have been many of times when I was down significantly in material but still managed to get the win, because my opponent(s) became complacent…
The TD is probably the only person in a reasonable position to properly torture the non-resigner.
The TD can walk up to the game, stop the clocks, and announce, “Gentlemen,” (or whatever) “it is time for me to pair the next round. I am not going to adjourn this game, it must be played to a conclusion. If the two of you agree on a result within the next 5 minutes, you will each be paired according to that result. If there is no agreed result within 5 minutes, you” (looking at the probable winner) “will be paired as a win, and you” (looking at the non-resigner) “will be paired as a draw. Whichever of you ultimately achieves the result I am pairing you as, will be given a 30-minute break before you must start your next game. Whichever (or both) of you does not achieve the result I am pairing you as, will be required to begin your next game immediately, with no break. Now, gentlemen,” (or whatever) “please resume this game.” (TD restarts the clock.)
Bill Smythe
I don’t understand how or why this would be valid.
Alex Relyea
I’m not so sure it would be valid, and the TD might lose on appeal, but it would surely treat the non-resigner as he deserves to be treated.
It’s a little like the modified-Kashdan method of dealing with adjournments. When it’s time to pair the next round, the TD approaches the game and lets the players know that, unless there is an agreed result within 5 minutes, the game will be adjourned, and paired as a win for both players – unless one of the players offers a draw within those 5 minutes, in which case that player will be paired as a draw, and his opponent as a win. If, however, both players offer a draw within those 5 minutes, the game is over (drawn) and will be paired accordingly.
I see no reason why the above technique couldn’t be used even without actually adjourning the game. Just let the game continue while pairings are being made, start the next round on time for everybody else, and delay the start of the games involving those two players.
Furthermore, in the case where one player is obviously playing for a win and the other for a draw, I see no need to even require that the weaker side offer a draw. Just pair each according to the result he is obviously seeking.
It’s a case of rough justice, or perhaps even pioneer justice.
Bill Smythe
Why don’t I, as a non-resigner, have every right to see if my opponent, who hasn’t figured it out so far, can figure out how to mate me?
Alex Relyea
Pre-Rulebooks, the TD could do whatever he liked with a long running game. He could adjudicate it, adjourn it and pair according to expected result, set the clocks for 5 minutes each and have the players finish the game, or stand there quietly watching for the game to end with the players very aware of his presence. Sometimes after the finish of a game like this the players would get a half hour grace before they started the next round; sometimes not as it would inconvenience more players and lead to the next round being late. Since that pre-Rulebook era involved the use of analog clocks and long time controls of 50/120, 25/60 repeating, there were more than a few long games.
One would hope that SD time controls would end these long games, but not so. The time delay can take the games very close to the start of the next round, especially when four rounds are crammed into a day. Increment time use can add considerable time when a long game (70+ moves) is played. In the Rulebook era, the TD is no longer to adjudicate games. Adjournments became passe because of Sudden Death (SD) time controls. For a TD now to break in and stop a game appears to the players as TD interference. They might have a valid claim. Would a TD stop an endgame played by two GMs where there seemed to be little progress being made? How would he base his claim to adjudicate the position? If the TD decides to adjourn the game, when would it be played? What expected result will you use in the pairings? In the pre-Rulebook era, the TD would sometimes ask the players what they were playing for, a win or a draw. If both said a draw, then the game would end. If one said a win and the other a draw or a win(!), then the game would be adjourned to a time determined by the TD, but all adjournments had to be completed before the last round. Usually the “threat” of an adjournment was enough for the players to end the game.
In the case of the torturer vs. stubborn hanger on, it would seem natural to adjudicate, pair the next round, and move on. However, do we want to give TDs back that discretion to adjudicate? Having seen a few biased TDs, and low rated TDs who have less skill in evaluating positions, that might lead to more than a few arguments. I remember a few angry rows in the pre-Rulebook era where players thought the TD overstepped his bounds.
Alex is right, Bill.
I usually resign if I am obviously going to lose. However if I do not have the faith in my opponent that he knows how to mate me, or I feel I might be able to swindle a draw or even win, I will continue the game.
It is a game after all and it is not over until it is over. I witnessed a Master, Steven Szpisjak miss a win and give a draw to an unrated player, Justin Brown in Peoria in 2002. If the unrated player would have resigned he would never have clinched the draw.
And I certainly would file a protest if any TD interfered with my game as you suggest.
You and Alex might be right, but I’m the one having all the fun! 
Note, however, that at no time in my scenario did I adjudicate the game. In fact, I ordered it to continue. I simply told the players how I would pair the next round if they did not agree to a result.
Furthermore, I would never intervene in a “typical” case just because one player had a losing position. It would have to be a really, really lost position and the player would have to be dragging his feet about making his next move. Even then, I would probably intervene only if the position were ridiculous and the starting time for the next round were being threatened.
An exacerbating circumstance might be if the foot-dragger had only one legal move.
Bill Smythe
There is already a rule for essentially abandoning a game (being disinterested in continuing it) even if you are sitting at the board.
Bolding mine:
Bill, if I were the non-resigner I would protest what you tell me. It is not the TDs responsibility or even right to decide who is winning or losing. And if I am objectively losing on the board, I certainly do not want anyone, especially the TD, to tell my opponent that he is winning.
If I am playing legally, within the assigned time control I deserve to be able to play and finish that game with that same time control and without any outside of the game pressure.
Also if I am playing and losing that game, and then if I proceed to lose the game, I certainly protest anything outside of the loss itself as a penalty. If I lose the game and my opponent wins, I would protest him having an extra 30 minutes before starting his game compared to what I have.
Now, if the TD cannot control his tournament that is his problem. Games that run over the next round starting time can be a problem. However “teaching a lesson” to the player that is using all his time and just trying to not lose is punitive at best. Adjournments are still allowed, I believe.
Bill, I understand that you or I doing this as a TD is not probable. I’m just responding to the penalty you suggest imposing on the person not achieving what he is going for in that game.
I am not telling the opponent he is winning. I am only telling him he will paired as a win in the next round, unless there is a timely agreed result.
This is nothing more than a slight extension of the Kashdan system of adjournments, wherein each player is asked, outside the view of the other, to write “playing for a win” or “playing for a draw” on a slip of paper, and be paired accordingly in the next round. If it is obvious which player is trying to win and which is trying to draw, there is no need for the TD to even ask the question.
If you are dead lost, and you have only one legal move, and you are steadfastly refusing to either move or resign, then you deserve nothing of the sort. You deserve a stern lecture on the subject of sportsmanship, and if you still refuse to move or resign, you deserve to be kicked out of the tournament and banned from the organizer’s future events.
Bill Smythe
In such a case just use 18G1 and adjudicate it immediately. There is no need to create other options.
PS Make sure the staller’s clock is the one that is running. Otherwise the staller is not yet on move and is allowed to try to win (or draw if the staller’s material is very little) by the other player flagging.